Changes

    

    

No, the method I favour has not been tried. I did not state that you don't "understand the concepts involved in NLP". I wrote "You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article" and that is the crux of the problem of your contribution thus far. Furthermore, none of you have grasped my principal position so I'll repeat it. Nowhere have I asked for or sought a statement as to the truth of the matter or "which side is best" nor have I attempted to arrive at the truth on the discussion page. Most -- perhaps all -- of the contention on the NLP article concerns (a) designating the view that NLP "works" as a minority view and disposing of it as per Wikipedia policy on minority views; (b) the representativenss of the authors critical of NLP as representative of the majority (scientific) view; and (c) the citability of sources on both sides of the divide. These are the core issues that produced the edit wars and these are the issues which you are not helping to resolve. All you've managed to do is slow down the edits. We will then arrive at the same old place but it will just take longer. You three need to indepedently investigate these matters and adjudicate on them. I will attempt to distil the debate (and I am happy if parties from either camp correct me). Note that this has nothing to do with righness and wrongness and truth it is do with a whether a situation meets the terms of certain Wikipedia policies.  

No, the method I favour has not been tried. I did not state that you don't "understand the concepts involved in NLP". I wrote "You don't even have a grasp of the basic points of contention regarding the NLP article" and that is the crux of the problem of your contribution thus far. Furthermore, none of you have grasped my principal position so I'll repeat it. Nowhere have I asked for or sought a statement as to the truth of the matter or "which side is best" nor have I attempted to arrive at the truth on the discussion page. Most -- perhaps all -- of the contention on the NLP article concerns (a) designating the view that NLP "works" as a minority view and disposing of it as per Wikipedia policy on minority views; (b) the representativenss of the authors critical of NLP as representative of the majority (scientific) view; and (c) the citability of sources on both sides of the divide. These are the core issues that produced the edit wars and these are the issues which you are not helping to resolve. All you've managed to do is slow down the edits. We will then arrive at the same old place but it will just take longer. You three need to indepedently investigate these matters and adjudicate on them. I will attempt to distil the debate (and I am happy if parties from either camp correct me). Note that this has nothing to do with righness and wrongness and truth it is do with a whether a situation meets the terms of certain Wikipedia policies.  

  '''Contra NLP'''  

 

  #The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

'''Contra NLP'''  

  #The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.  

#The view that NLP is efficacious and theoretically sound is a minority view not unlike "flat earth" theory. Hence it should be treated in the NLP article and in Wikipedia generally as a minority view.   

  #The few (3-5) scientists that do support and promote NLP are a minority, they are espousing a minority view and should be presented as such.  

#The scientists cited in the article are representative of the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, nueropsychologists and sociologists and hence should be presented as such.  

  #The view that NLP is pseudoscientific, New Age and cult-like is the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, neuropsychologists and sociologists and should be presented as such.  

#The few (3-5) scientists that do support and promote NLP are a minority, they are espousing a minority view and should be presented as such.  

  #The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.  

#The view that NLP is pseudoscientific, New Age and cult-like is the majority view of psychologists, psychiatrists, linguists, neurologists, neuropsychologists and sociologists and should be presented as such.  

  '''Pro NLP'''  

#The texts cited in criticism of NLP are authroritative and many are peer-reviewed.  

  The obverse of the above points.  

 

'''Pro NLP'''  

The obverse of the above points.  

    

    

  The conflict arises because  

The conflict arises because  

  #The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have NLP presented as a minority view.  

#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have NLP presented as a minority view.  

  #The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.  

#The pro-NLP editors are unwilling to have the view that NLP is ineffective and withour theoretical basis presented as the majority view.  

  #The few scientists that do support NLP and promote its use are too much weight and space relative to their individual (academic) stature and numerical number.  

#The few scientists that do support NLP and promote its use are too much weight and space relative to their individual (academic) stature and numerical number.  

  #The pro-NLP editors argue that the scathing critiques (eg. from Leelt, Drenth, Carroll, Eisner, Singer) are not majority representative views but are instead the views of a minority of extremists.  

#The pro-NLP editors argue that the scathing critiques (eg. from Leelt, Drenth, Carroll, Eisner, Singer) are not majority representative views but are instead the views of a minority of extremists.  

    

    

  The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these psoitions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]

The extensive, expansive and heated discussion occured because these psoitions were argued for by each side in an attempt to establish the righness of their position regarding the representativess and authority of the sources ''not the righness or wrongness of NLP''. The bulk of the conflict turns around the application [[WP:NPOVUW]], NPOV:Pseudoscience, and NPOV:Giving "equal validity". The ''real'' issues have not been addressed by any mediators, arbitrarors and mentors and addressing these would not be "more of the same". It is well within your remit to adjudicate these matters. Have I explained myself clearly? Do you understand? [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=39828314]

''NLP is a useful tool if you know how to use it. Some havent learned how to use it or had ineffective teachers and thus blaming it. Before you learn NLP, check if people who have attended a seminar are getting result before signing up to that trainer. I know price can vary, 1 could look really cheap, I recommend paying someone well who is getting results. If at all learn from the creator of it or his well known disciples''. Feb 23, 2006(JM)  

NLP is a useful tool if you know how to use it. Some havent learned how to use it or had ineffective teachers and thus blaming it. Before you learn NLP, check if people who have attended a seminar are getting result before signing up to that trainer. I know price can vary, 1 could look really cheap, I recommend paying someone well who is getting results. If at all learn from the creator of it or his well known disciples. Feb 23, 2006(JM)  

    

    

  :Can you please add your remarks to the bottom of this section rather than at the top. Something is useful only if it works. NLP doesn't work hence it is not useful. There is no evidence that any aspect of NLP works. I'm not making that up. There is not one randomised control experiment that demonstrates the efficacy of ''any'' aspect of NLP. Asking people about "results" is simply obtaining anecdotal evidence. Who cares for anecdotal evidence? Humans have a great capacity for kidding themselves. How would you know that (a) you are getting results; and (b) if you are getting results, that you can attribute those to NLP? ''The'' creator. There were two creators Bandler and Grinder. You must be a Bandlerite. I have zero respect for Bandler -- just look at the guy: fat, toothless, diabetic, former cocaine addict, former alcoholic, implicated in murder, bankrupted twice, lost his insane litigations regarding NLP as his intellectual property. Bandler has also fictionalised his biography and been dishonest about his accomplishments. Bandler has a BA in Psychology and Philosophy and an MA in Psychology. He isn't a mathematician or an engineers. I'd rather give my money to be vagrant. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)  

:Can you please add your remarks to the bottom of this section rather than at the top. Something is useful only if it works. NLP doesn't work hence it is not useful. There is no evidence that any aspect of NLP works. I'm not making that up. There is not one randomised control experiment that demonstrates the efficacy of ''any'' aspect of NLP. Asking people about "results" is simply obtaining anecdotal evidence. Who cares for anecdotal evidence? Humans have a great capacity for kidding themselves. How would you know that (a) you are getting results; and (b) if you are getting results, that you can attribute those to NLP? ''The'' creator. There were two creators Bandler and Grinder. You must be a Bandlerite. I have zero respect for Bandler -- just look at the guy: fat, toothless, diabetic, former cocaine addict, former alcoholic, implicated in murder, bankrupted twice, lost his insane litigations regarding NLP as his intellectual property. Bandler has also fictionalised his biography and been dishonest about his accomplishments. Bandler has a BA in Psychology and Philosophy and an MA in Psychology. He isn't a mathematician or an engineers. I'd rather give my money to be vagrant. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41131026]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flavius_vanillus&diff=prev&oldid=41168107

Hello Comaze. Concerning your action on behalf of the interests of the NLP company of the Collingwoods: In an effort to reduce the likelihood of conflict being provoked, and for the sake of continuing the improvement on the NLP workshop article, I have posted a message to KatefanO on this matter. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0]. [[User:Camridge|Camridge]] 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Concerning your action on behalf of the interests of the NLP company of the Collingwoods: In an effort to reduce the likelihood of conflict being provoked, and for the sake of continuing the improvement on the NLP workshop article, I have posted a message to KatefanO on this matter. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0]. [[User:Camridge|Camridge]] 03:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)